As has been already said, the civil wars which prevailed during the earlier part of this period enabled the Assassins to establish and consolidate their power in a way which would otherwise have been impossible. Barkiyáruq, indeed, was accused of being in sympathy with them, or at least of allowing them a large measure of toleration in return for their support or benevolent neutrality. Under the year A.H. 494 (A.D. 1100-1) Ibnu'l-Athír tells us that, having taken prisoner Mu'ayyidu'l-Mulk, one of the sons of the Nidhámu'l-Mulk, Barkiyáruq reviled him for having made this assertion, and then slew him with his own hand. * In the same year, when he marched against his brothers Sanjar and Muḥammad at Baghdád, and the two armies confronted one another across the Tigris, the enemy taunted him and his soldiers with cries of “Yà Bàṭiniyya!” (“O Báṭinís!”). The massacre of Báṭinís which he ordered about this time was probably intended to dispel from the minds of his subjects this dangerous belief, a belief which might easily have led to his murder or deposition, as happened in the case of Aḥmad Khán, the ruler of Samarqand, and Íránsháh, the Seljúq prince of Kirmán, both of whom, not to mention numerous ministers and statesmen, like the Majdu'l-Mulk, suffered this fate because they were suspected of sympathy with the heretics. Such fear prevailed that it was not uncommon for those who had reason to dread the vengeance of the Assassins to wear a shirt of mail under their clothes, as was the custom of Bulká; but one day he omitted this precaution, and paid for his negligence with his life. Even when captured and put to death— often with torture—the fidá'ís of the Assassins often managed to wreak a further vengeance on their foes, as did the murderer of Fakhru'l-Mulk, who, being brought before Sanjar and interrogated, denounced as confederates of his order a number of prominent amìrs and officers of the Court, who, though probably innocent, shared his fate.
One of the most curious episodes connected with the history
of these formidable heretics is very fully described by the
Episode in the
history of the
Assassins at
Isfahán.
author of the Ráḥatu'ṣ-Ṣudùr (see J.R.A.S. for
1902, pp. 606-609) and by Ibnu'l-Athír; I mean
the events which culminated in the destruction of
the Assassin stronghold of Sháh Dizh or Dizh-i-
Close to Iṣfahán stood the Castle of Dizh-i-Kúh, built by Maliksháh and named therefore Sháh-dizh, “the King's Ibn 'Aṭṭásh. Fortress.” In it were stored arms and treasure, and there dwelt certain of the royal pages and girls attached to the Court, guarded by a company of Daylamí soldiers. Thither Ibn 'Aṭṭásh, under the pretence of giving lessons to these young people, used to repair, and gradually, by means of fair words and presents, he succeeded in bringing over the garrison to his allegiance.
He next established a mission-house in the Dasht-i-gúr, hard by the gates of the city; and such was his success that the number of his converts and adherents ultimately reached thirty thousand, according to the statement of our historian. About this time the people of Iṣfahán began to be alarmed by repeated mysterious disappearances of their fellow-citizens. The mystery was ultimately solved by a poor beggar-woman, who, craving an alms from a certain house, and hearing from within a lamentable groaning and wailing, exclaimed, “May God heal your sick!” But when an attempt was made by the inmates of the house to induce her to enter, on the pretext of giving her food, she became suspicious, fled, and gave the alarm. A crowd soon surrounded the house, broke open the door, and found within in the cellars a horrible sight; for there against the walls and on the floor they beheld some four or five hundred unfortunate victims—some slain, some crucified, of whom a few still breathed—amongst whom many of those who had lately been missed by their friends were identified. The house in question belonged to a blind man named 'Alawí Madaní, and was a meeting-place of the Assassins. This man, staff in hand, used, about nightfall, to take his stand at the end of the long, dark lane which led to the house, and cry out, “May God pardon him who will take the hand of this poor blind man and lead him to the door of his dwelling in this lane!” So the unsuspecting victim who charitably complied with this request was lured to his destruction, for when he had come to the end of the lane he was seized by a number of the blind man's confederates, cast into the cellars, and there done to death. And this had been going on for several months ere the terrible discovery above mentioned was made. Vengeance swiftly followed, 'Alawí Madání, his wife, and some of his accomplices being burned to death in the market-place. Suspicion was rife, and fell, amongst others, upon the minister Sa'du'l-Mulk, but the King, whose confidence he enjoyed, refused at first to believe in his guilt. The Castle of Dizh-i-Kúh had at this period been besieged for some time, and Ibn 'Aṭṭásh, being nearly at the end of his resources, sent a secret message to Sa'du'l-Mulk to the effect that he could hold out no longer and desired to surrender. “Be patient for a week,” Sa'du'l-Mulk replied, “until I destroy this dog” (meaning the King). His plan was to take advantage of the King's habit of being bled every month to destroy him by poisoning the lancet used by the surgeon-barber, whom he succeeded in bribing to his purpose. The plot, however, was communicated by his chamberlain, who shared all his secrets, to his beautiful wife, who told her paramour, who told an officer of Sharafu'l-Mulk, who told the King. So the King summoned the surgeon-barber, and, on his arrival, caused him to be scratched with his own knife, whereupon, as the poison took effect, he turned black and soon expired in great agony.
Then the King was convinced of the guilt of his minister, whom he hanged or crucified together with four of his accomplices, including one Abu'l-'Alá al-Mufaḍḍal. Two days after this Ibn 'Aṭṭásh surrendered the Castle of Dizh-i-Kúh. He was paraded on a camel through the streets of Iṣfahán, a spectacle for thousands, pelted with mud and dirt, and mocked in derisive verses, of which a specimen (in dialect) is given in the Ráḥatu'ṣ-Ṣudùr; afterwards he was crucified, and hung on the cross for seven days. Arrows were fired at him as he hung there, helpless and tormented, and finally his body was burned to ashes. He pretended to have some considerable skill in astrology, and as he hung on the cross one of the bystanders asked him whether he had, by virtue of his science, been able to foresee this fate. He replied, “I perceived from my horoscope that I should traverse the streets of Iṣfahán with pomp and parade more than royal, but I did not know that it would be in such fashion.”*
Sulṭán Muḥammad, now thoroughly aroused and alarmed,
began to take measures for the systematic extirpation of the
Assassins and the reduction of the many mountain strongholds
of which they had gained possession, but his death in A.D. 1118
put an end to these projects and gave the heretics a fresh
chance, of which they were not slow to avail themselves, so
that within the next ten or fifteen years they had, by force,
stratagem, or bribery, added the Syrian fastnesses of Qadmús,
Bániyás, and Maṣyáth to their possessions, which included in
Persia, besides Alamút, Gird-i-kúh, and Shir-kúh, Ṭabas, Khúr,
Khúsaf, Zawzan, Qá'in, Tún, Washm-kúh near Abhar, Khá-
Having thus briefly sketched in broad outline the political condition of Persia during the period of Sanjar and his brothers,
Literary History of the Period. we may turn to the literature of this epoch. The great increase in the number of Persian poets, and the growing employment of Persian instead of Arabic as the literary language of Írán, will, on the one hand, oblige us to confine our attention to the most celebrated poets, Persian poets. and, on the other, will permit us to concern ourselves less and less with Arabic writings. Let us first consider the most notable Persian poets, arranging them approximately in chronological order.